Ad blitz drains support for California GMO-labeling plan

By Lisa Baertlein

updated
10/11/2012 9:58:40 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - An intense advertising blitz, funded by
Monsanto Co and others, has eroded support for a California ballot
proposal that would require U.S. food makers to disclose when their
products contain genetically modified organisms.

If California voters approve the measure on November 6, it would be
the first time U.S. food makers have to label products that contain
GMOs, or ingredients whose DNA has been manipulated by scientists.

The United States does not require safety testing for GM ingredients
before they go to market. Industry says the products are safe, but there
is a fiery debate raging around the science.

Dozens of countries already have GM food labeling requirements, with
the European Union imposing mandatory labeling in 1997. Since then, GM
products and crops have virtually disappeared from that market.

For more than a week, an opposition group funded by Monsanto, PepsiCo
Inc and others has dominated television and radio air time with ads
portraying the labeling proposal as an arbitrary set of new rules that
will spawn frivolous lawsuits and boost food prices, positions disputed
by supporters of the proposed new measures.

Experts say the real risk is that food companies may be more likely to stop using GMOs, than to label them.

That could disrupt U.S. food production because ingredients like GM
corn, soybeans and canola have for years been staples in virtually every
type of packaged food, from soup and tofu to breakfast cereals and
chips.

Support for the GMO labeling proposal has plummeted to 48.3 percent
from 66.9 percent two weeks ago, according to an online survey of 830
likely California voters conducted for the California Business
Roundtable and Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy by M4
Strategies.

At the same time, the proportion of respondents likely to vote "no"
on the measure - known as Proposition 37 - jumped to 40.2 percent from
22.3 percent two weeks ago, according to the survey results released on
Thursday.

"Clearly the 'No' side has more money and the advertising is having
an effect," Michael Shires, a Pepperdine professor who oversees the
survey, told Reuters.

Funding for the effort to defeat the "Right to Know" ballot is led by
chemical giants Monsanto and DuPont, each of which owns businesses that
are the world's top sellers of genetically modified seeds.

Monsanto has contributed just over $7 million to fight the proposal,
while DuPont has kicked in about $5 million. In all, the "No on 37" camp
raised a total of $34.6 million, according to filings with the
California Secretary of State.

"Yes on 37" supporters, led by the Organic Consumers Association and
Joseph Mercola, a natural health information provider, have donated $5.5
million.

"When there's an initiative that's going to affect an industry that
can rally resources, they've usually been able to stop it," said Shires.
"It still could go either way."

ADVERTISING WAR

Supporters of the new labeling measures on Thursday accused the "No
on 37" group of "pounding Californians with lies and deception", but the
group says it is simply underscoring flaws in the labeling proposal.

The "No on 37" group recently had to pull an ad that identified its
star, Henry Miller, as a Stanford University doctor rather than as a
fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution think tank on the
university's campus. The group corrected the affiliation after Stanford
complained.

Supporters of the ballot initiative, including food and environmental
activists as well as organic growers, say consumers have the right to
know what's in the food they eat.

Because foods made with GMOs are not labeled, it is impossible to
trace any food allergies or other ill effects suffered by humans or
animals, they say.

Drafters of Proposition 37 say they excluded certain foods from the
labeling rules to make them simpler and less burdensome for businesses.
Exemptions include restaurant food as well as milk and meat from animals
that eat GM feed.

California is the top milk-producing state in nation and its
restaurant industry has annual sales of about $58 billion. It is not a
significant producer of GM crops.

Opponents of the bill have seized on the exclusions. Their ads
question why a frozen pizza (sold in a supermarket) would be labeled,
while delivery pizza (from a restaurant) would not.

Each side has trotted out its own cost studies, which come to significantly different conclusions.

I mailed in my ballot this morning. I voted Yes on Prop 37. If people stop and actually read what the proposition says on the ballot and if they don't allow the ads to get in their heads, it should pass. It makes sense logically. There's no reason this can't be placed on existing food labels.

I really hope Californians use their heads and don't succumb to these scare tactics.

You and Krystizzle have to fight this fight for us. I am on the opposite coast just hoping this passes in Cali for the better of all America. Thank you for your efforts. We appreciate it..and are not buying the Monsanto hype.

Quoting OHgirlinCA:

I mailed in my ballot this morning. I voted Yes on Prop 37. If people stop and actually read what the proposition says on the ballot and if they don't allow the ads to get in their heads, it should pass. It makes sense logically. There's no reason this can't be placed on existing food labels.

I really hope Californians use their heads and don't succumb to these scare tactics.